Out of Court: Why Have the Courts Played No Role in Resolving Devolution Disputes in the United Kingdom?

Robert Hazell

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 37, issue 4, 578-598

Abstract: The U.K. is an outlier in comparative terms in having experienced no litigation about the division of powers following the introduction of devolution in 1998. Conventional wisdom ascribes this to the coincidence of Labour-led governments in London, Scotland, and Wales. But other factors are also at work, which are informative about the flexible nature of the British constitution and the British approach to devolution. These include the continuing sovereignty of the U.K. Parliament, the limited extent of devolution in the U.K., elaborate checks to ensure devolved legislation remains within competence, and adjustment mechanisms built into the original devolution settlement. The absence of litigation has obvious advantages, but also disadvantages, in that the interpretation of the division of powers under devolution remains secret law. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjm020 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:publus:v:37:y::i:4:p:578-598

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Publius: The Journal of Federalism is currently edited by Paul Nolette and Philip Rocco

More articles in Publius: The Journal of Federalism from CSF Associates Inc. Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().